what can I say, I'm evil. I'd probably refuse to give my children candy as well, if I had any. err... any children OR candy; currently I have neither. I'll leave it up to you to decide which is harder to obtain. :D

well, I can't speak for the rest of the world, but in the US cars are 20% functional, 80% emotional crutch. a good part of the reason why electric car production is stilted (and why things like solar panels aren't generally even considered) is that the target audience for automakers (historically and currently) has been people who are image and status conscious. Electric cars lack power and range, solar panels are obvious and unstylish, and people who are image conscious will generally choose an attractive, powerful gas-guzzler over a car whose design is constrained by technical requirements. that's why hybrids have been more successful than electrics - a hybrid you can make look like a cool car, without impairing driving abilities too much, so companies have been willing to invest in hybrid development.

if you ask me, the best approach to solving this problem would be to turn the technological clock back about 80 years and start reinvestigating steam-powered cars. steam cars are actually better than internal combustion engines in numerous ways: better energy efficiency (a lot of the IC waste is through heat production), wider range of fuels that can be used, more power (the original steam-powered cars could literally pull locomotives). their biggest drawback (which is why the IC engine took over) is that it could take 20 to 30 minutes to build up sufficient steam, which was a bit long for impatient people to wait. but combine it with a decent electric motor and that problem would be solved fairly easily. I don't know if anyone's been looking into that steam-hybrid approach, though.

Maybe, but I think a good designer could use solar cells as an integral part of the aesthetics and still get good performance from them.

That sounds credible. After all, your cars used to have whopping great fins, no? Make solar panels fin-like and market them as Fifties retro :D.

yeah, but that's part of the problem. those fins were absolutely senseless, and it's easy to sell people things that have no purpose. if it has to be there, though, people don't want to think about it. now, if you could market it as a glitzy paint job that just happened to double as a solar power collector as well, that might work.

I keep reading about companies making flexible solar panels, and I see them on calculators, watches, etc., so it's hard to imagine that they can't be stylishly integrated into roofs, roof racks, hoods, quarter panels, and even car interiors. Shouldn't the sun screens have them?

It just seems like we're often looking for excuses to not do something that we know will work. It's like the fat guy who says he's tried everything, but has never been to the gym.

I just heard/read about solar panel paint and a new kind of solar panel that is non-directional and works much better in locations that don't get the direct sunlight required, so progress is being made.

Civility??? trying to bully/muzzled someone is called civility now?
Even people who don’t understand the science recognize the illogical of arguing that colder temperatures are due to warming.This results in the believers of human caused global warming to take increasingly ridiculous positions to defend the indefensible. Dr. Joanne Simpson described as follows.
“the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.” said: “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical."
A scientist in an organization directly involved in climate science does not feel free to speak out??? maybe TW is using the the same textbook! some new society you are advocating. You are all against Emissions,greenhouse gases and other evil deeds made by the industrial world. But without even blinking an eye you all want Alternative energy..Anyone ever stop to think about all the news mines new chemical plants and new oil wells that will be needed to produce these alternative energies?the environmental damage and add to that the emmission of greenhouse gases you all hate so much. The same things the Environmentalists are against we will need more of these raw materiel. That's how, after getting rid of our mercury in thermometers and thermostats because the fumes are killing us, we have this wonderful poison back in each of our homes with the CFL light bulbs. Why? because GE declared itself "green" . you are right tw I need to be silence and as far as I am concerned trying to communicate to someone who is Morally bankrupt is a waist of time. cheers! may GORE be with you.

Yes it is, but not where it's needed, with auto makers. First, they resist hybrids, then they grudgingly (and oh so slowly) accept them. Now they're starting to think about pure electric, but ignoring solar.

I guess it should be no surprise that they're in trouble.

.
That sounds fascinating!
I would be most interest in reading about this, if you have a good link. :)

.

I *think* the paint/solar thing was on Quirks & Quarks...the non-directional solar...hmmm....I will see what I can dig up.

K, the paint one is about 2/3rds of the way in (interview 7) here. Now that I think about it, the non-directional solar might have been a TED presentation...searching.

Economic benefits of reducing Global Climate Change
 

.
Nobel-prize winning economist Paul Krugman sounds more optimistic than in a long time with regard to the global financial crisis. Moreover, he believes that investment in the development and implementation of innovative technology to reduce the global climate change has a strong chance of driving recovery.

An excerpt:

.

He's another one who rarely (if ever) makes any connection between consumers and workers. It's perfectly obvious that more investment by major corporations would make a huge difference in the economy because more people earning living wages would create more consumers. The problem is that doing so is against short term corporate interests. We live in an era when large companies are used to making money by laying off well paid workers and replacing them with cheap labor or technology. Sure, it's unsustainable, just like using fossil fuels, but what companies plan that far ahead? All they care about is what their stocks are doing today. Tomorrow is some one else's problem, in the economy and the environment.